User Profile: bonesiii


Member Since: October 14, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • September 17, 2014 at 11:44am

    Another link that sums up the problem well:

    This clearly shows the long ages to be dogma believed OVER the evidence, NOT based ON evidence. What you said, fom, about evolutionist scientists working hard to falsify their own views is simply false. It makes for a noble-sounding argument, but anybody can make such claims — they don’t stand up to testing.

    “…but test everything; hold fast what is good.”

    1 Thessalonians 5:21

  • September 17, 2014 at 11:38am

    And that there is any C-14 in them also is reason to possibly question conventional wisdom. But why have we not heard about any of this in the news? Shouldn’t there have been at least a 15-second blip from one of the media outlets? But the media have been silent and the abstract pulled from the meeting proceedings.”


    1) Caution was taken at all stages to avoid contamination. (Admittedly, according to a creationist source, but as said before, evolutionists can falsify this! The whole point of bringing this up was to show that they do NOT worry a lot about trying to falsify evolution. The money is not spent on this kind of research — it’s given to those who give lip service to total support of evolution instead, and those who dare question are punished.)

    2) It came from multiple sites, and even multiple species.

    3) It agrees with the soft tissue finds (as said above).

    4) A totally different behavior by the evolutionist media is seen. When the latest monkey is found, prior to all research it is trumpeted proudly as the next transitional form (the later real work that inevitably disqualifies it is only quietly reported if ever). But THIS find, EVEN IF TENTATIVE is SILENCED. There’s no reports that it MAY show the fossils to be young, or that the C14 MAY be there due to some other unexplained cause, etc. It’s just… suppressed.

  • September 17, 2014 at 11:29am

    BTW, about the C14 — well, first, keep in mind it’s not the ONLY evidence, there’s also the soft tissue remnants (Dr. Schweitzer’s discovery) — but that aside, here’s a quote about the possibility of contamination, and some other great points too:

    “The samples were meticulously handled and cleaned to avoid possible contamination. The carbon-14 (C-14) levels in these samples were measured using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS). The resultant C-14 ages obtained from these samples were consistently in the 22,000 – 39,000 years range. The fact that the samples were from a variety of species and sites all giving consistent results greatly reduces the chance that the results are from contamination.

    The theoretical upper limit for C-14 dating is ten times the half-life, or about 57,000 years. The proposed practical upper limit for C-14 dating is between 40,000 – 50,000 years. While some samples fell close to the 40,000 year upper limit, 16 out of 20 (80%) were aged at 35,000 years or younger, well within the acceptable upper C-14 dating limits.

    While other researchers have found soft tissue in dinosaur bones and C-14 dates in these ranges, this current study has been the most comprehensive. The fact that there is any collagen at all remaining in these bone samples is amazing, considering that they are supposed to be older than 65 million years. Protein just doesn’t hang around that long! [...]

  • September 17, 2014 at 11:10am

    Don’t forget, too, that you would need to explain OUR disagreement with YOU in a similar way; that either we are ignorant or suppressing what we know to be true. You have to believe that “denial is a thing” (besides, psychologists have shown conclusively that it is anyways). You don’t want to face that you might be the one in denial, and not us, but if you were intellectually honest (or right), I would expect you to admit the possibility as I do. That you have to dismiss that it’s even possible that deep down you know the truth but don’t face it, may be the strongest evidence of all that it’s the case for you. If you knew you were right based on sound logic, not emotional reasons, you wouldn’t need to fear this possibility.

  • September 17, 2014 at 10:45am

    No. :) But it WOULD be pretty obviously a psychological shield. I understand you may not have time, and these are things you need time to seriously think about. But notice your approach of reply enables you to feel superior while not addressing anything I said…

  • September 17, 2014 at 10:18am

    BTW, to this part:

    “while i was capable of believing, i really liked being a christian. i felts safe and secure in christs love.”

    I won’t overthink the first part, but it does sound actually like an admission that you may be suppressing the truth. If you’re INCAPABLE of believing then it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, you won’t believe. I’ll hope it was just poor word choice though. :)

    Anyways, you keep saying you were a Christian, that you believed, but I haven’t seen you yet explain why you believed. You mentioned apologetics before, but gave no specifics (not that I would really expect you to in that statement, but yeah), and here I’m just seeing a lot of emotional stuff. I’m also trying to hope you didn’t mean your statement about logic the way it sounded… but regardless, I can’t help but think that so far you’re just demonstrating what I’ve thought for a long time; that most atheists who “used to be Christians” didn’t actually know WHY it was true; didn’t know the things I know, and still don’t, or don’t want to admit it’s sound for emotional reasons.

    It sounds kind of like where I was when I was young, before I entered a time of doubt and eventually accepted “for real” based on the support.

    And it’s kind of like saying “I used to feel all warm inside to think the Earth was a sphere” but then reading a bunch of Flat Earther sites almost exclusively and choosing to blindly trust them over us Spheroid Earthers.

  • September 17, 2014 at 9:57am

    The same rules for science in other areas of life are not applied to evolution. When the hypothesis fails, it is fair to adapt the hypothesis, don’t get me wrong, but the fact that the biblical “hypothesis” is being successful over and over again with highly specific, falsifiable claims is being ignored in favor of this constantly failing but being rescued hypothesis of evolution. That does make evolution a dogma/religion/worldview, not science.

  • September 17, 2014 at 9:56am

    If in fact the C14 is not consistently found in dinosaur fossils, evolutionists should be able to falsify the results themselves by testing other fossils. :) If anything, the fact that this scientist made such a mistake in the past is likely to motivate him to be extra careful to avoid that mistake again. He is also not the only scientist who worked on this test.

    As for your answer on the noah genetics thing, I don’t really even see an answer there. Claiming confirmation bias when you’re confronted with evidence you don’t like wouldn’t be accepted by you if we did it (well, we DO think it’s there, but we debunk false evidence through logic and science, not merely claiming bias!). (Watch, now he’ll say it would, just to spite me lol.) This approach seems to be pretty normal with you — rather than showing the evidence faulty, or just admitting tentatively that it seems convincing, you simply try to cast doubt, never conclusively. You’ll search around as if in a kind of somewhat calm desperation looking for any ‘dirt’ on the people involved, but can’t seem to show how the evidence itself is unsound.

    Now I -expect- that, of course. I’m just saying, if you were right, that’s NOT what we would expect.

    “i understand you think its dogma. but why? the methodology is used because it works.”

    I can’t speak for him, but its predictions consistently failing is a big part of it.

  • September 17, 2014 at 9:56am

    This is not a useful response, since somebody who is suppressing the truth can’t be expected to admit it. ;)

    “in as far as i can know such things about my motivations, i know paul is wrong about me.”

    That’s the thing — your conscious mind is not really capable of truly understanding your subconscious. It’s linear and thus very slow and limited (everybody’s is), but the subconscious can use parallel processing and is thus very fast to reach sound conclusions, many at once, etc. Your subconscious also can’t help but run an analysis even if your conscious mind wants to avoid thinking about it. So simple basics like the causality proof of God, IMO your subconscious can’t help but already have run and concluded God must exist. I think this is what Paul was referring to. And since the causality proof is SOUND, this makes perfect sense. And it PREDICTS your reaction right here!

    “i couldnt help but notice that in the c-14 and dinos article, one of the authors on the paper is hugh miller. miller has already demonstrated he is an idiot when it comes to contaminating fossils with recent carbon. in the nineties, he carbon dated dinosaur fossils with shellac on it. unsurprisingly, he got a date for the age of the shellac.”

    That’s a fair caution. However, it doesn’t demonstrate that he did the equivalent NOW — that is ad hominem fallacy; attacking the man, rather than the evidence.

  • September 17, 2014 at 9:55am

    And I wasn’t going to call you on this, but since you keep going here, I noticed a classic marker for pride for you earlier. You seem to feel the need to praise yourself before others. You remember when Joe Biden informed us that he was “damned sophisticated”? If he really was, we wouldn’t really need HIM to tell us, you know? You earlier self-judged yourself as good at criticizing your own ideas: “i try to prove my ideas wrong and i am really good at it.”

    Well, I honestly don’t see that in you. Somewhat, yes, but only when those ideas happen to support “religion.” :P But the fact that you have to tell me that’s happening, really makes me wonder. I have learned that we should always be open to the criticism of others (as much as it still hurts to hear it sometimes), and not priase ourselves like that. Simply be honest and humble and work hard to be good, and let others recognize it if they think you succeed. :)

    Ultimately, you don’t really need to understand that part (or if you do, you should be motivated to examine yourself a lot more); you just need to know the sound support and accept. :)

    “its funny. lots of christians like to point to romans to say that everyone knows god exists, they just suppress it in wickedness. and that might comfort them. but in as far as i know, i am not suppressing it. while i was capable of believing”


  • September 17, 2014 at 9:49am

    I actually hate to talk, naturally. I’m shy by nature, and this is not easy for me, though by now I have enough experience. But it’s impractical to repeat myself when you can (and should) research what’s already common knowledge on your own, when I have other responsibilities I need to spend time on. :) You can already see some of it in my other replies here, though. I recommend starting with the causality proof; that’s the first big thing I would need to see atheists answering in order for them even to have a case, as it disproves atheism.

    As for the rest of what you said, the fact that you judge a creationist site without reading it enough yourself, through what ATHEISTS think about it, pretty much sums up why you aren’t an objective judge. No offense, but I’d hope that would be obvious… I don’t judge atheist/evolutionist sites by creationists saying they’re bad. Reading them on their own merits (or lack) was a big part of what eventually convinced me they were wrong, though I had to have an education in logic (which sadly most seem to lack due to our education system :( ) to filter their arguments properly, and I did have to get over my own pride in not wanting to humble myself before Christ.

  • September 17, 2014 at 9:39am

    “i dont think it would be loving to hamper my son with beliefs that are not evidenced.”

    But it has been shown how they are evidenced. The unfakeable prophecies for one. The causality proof of God shows at least that he is capable of it. And the point is not that you must have evidence there IS an afterlife, but the RISK of going to the wrong place in the afterlife should motivate you to SEEK more.

    “as to logic finding truth… yeah, i think youre biased”

    Okay then. Explains a lot. ;)

    “your explanation of why i would suppress gods existence doesnt make sense to me. if i believed the christian god was real, what sin am i committing that is so desirable and/or addictive that i would want to continue at the expense of eternal damnation? honestly, none that i can think of.”

    No offense, but likely pride. I know it was like that to me. I didn’t want to humble myself before God. Most other sins probably stem from that. And there are likely others too. But remember the point is that either you must be ignorant (again, no offense :)), or suppressing what you know, because we HAVE seen the sound support, and I at least understand logic to know what that is. I see that soundly supported truths are reliable in the everyday world, so I understand why it is not okay to deny THIS sound truth. The fact that you don’t agree must have SOME explanation. Even if this is not the one, that remains true.

  • [1] September 16, 2014 at 12:33pm

    BTW, trolling is a behavior; it has nothing to do with being on opposite sides. There are people on my side who troll too. (And they shouldn’t.) But even if there weren’t, it wouldn’t mean we should be blind to that behavior on your side (and it’s definitely very common on your side, but so far your posts have seemed better than that :)).

  • [1] September 16, 2014 at 12:04pm

    roscoe, you do realize that analogy only defeats your own argument, since the cops are the good guys (well, supposed to be :P) and the other side is the criminal? :P

    Okay now we’ll probably launch into a tangent about corrupt cops. Aaaanywho, let’s just agree that sometimes cops are good, and good cop bad cop may actually be effective for them. :) (“Bad” here would mean in the old biblical sense of unpleasant or causing harm, in this case justified, rather than morally bad.)

    Also, being afraid of being afraid of hell is just as irrational, if it exists, as being afraid of it if it doesn’t… We don’t scare people with threats of hell — we see why the Bible is soundly true, and since it TEACHES that we’re bound for hell without Jesus, we show people this danger out of love. Might they get scared as a side effect? Yes! But in that case THEY SHOULD. Fear isn’t entirely bad; it can help warn us of legitimate dangers. The point is that it cannot be used ALONE; it must accompany sound support (or reasonable suspicion in many cases).

  • [1] September 16, 2014 at 11:57am

    If you both end up in hell… again, I KNOW this must be hard to hear, but sometimes we NEED to hear hard truths or challenges to avoid greater danger down the road… would that be loving to neglect that? How will you and he look back on that then? Surely with a lot of regret, quite possibly resentment. Please consider this; I don’t have the right to judge you on this, but I hope to at least open your eyes so maybe you can judge yourself honestly about it. :)

    Also, notice the admission to an approach of embracing the opposite of one of my “rules” for truthseeking; all-inclusive research, at the start of this quote. If you’re really confident it’s false, it shouldn’t matter how many apologetics articles/books/whatever you read or people you hear. I don’t need to fear hearing anything and everything, for example, from the Flat Earthers since I know the sound support for the Spheroid Earth. Any view that requires insulation from opposing voices is probably false… (Emphasis on probably though. :P)

  • [1] September 16, 2014 at 11:53am

    BTW, I didn’t have time earlier to reply to this part of your post that this reply chain’s attached to, but re-reading it, there’s some things I feel may need said:

    “youve exposed yourself to too much apologetics, and not enough honest inquiry. youre not going to do this to your son.”

    and here i am.

    my disbelief isnt based on a hard heart. its based on love.”

    Is it love to let either yourself or your son neglect your eternal destinies? Let’s say for sake of discussion the Bible is true (which I know it is but yeah) — you can work harder to investigate the question. Maybe you don’t think you can, but I’ve spoken with you long enough to say that yes, you definitely can. For starters, you clearly are in serious need of an education in logic. Maybe I’m biased as a logician but I do think that is one of the most crucial keys to finding truth (which makes sense :P), and I think people who aren’t taught it in all grades as a required course are being robbed. Anyways, there’s also obviously a ton about origins and the Bible in general that you’re ignorant of (through no fault of your own in many cases I’m sure).

    Disbelieving because you don’t know the sound support isn’t good enough — you have a responsibility to take the time and do the work to SEEK.

    Now say that you neglect this your entire life, and train your son to do that. I know this has to be hard to hear; I mean no offense, but it’s important.

  • [1] September 16, 2014 at 11:31am

    By definition, we cannot comprehend everything about it, since it’s infinite and we’re finite. However, due to the causality proof we CAN comprehend THAT infinity does exist (and eternity can thus exist because God has infinite fuel to keep us going, if you will, forever in linear time).

    Actually the fact that we can’t comprehend everything about infinity is a very good thing — it means we can never run out of new things to learn in heaven!

    “By the way, it appears that you think someone is a troll if they don’t agree with you, well I guess I’m a troll then.”


    Off the top of my head I have no idea why you’re saying this… *reviews*

    All I’m seeing is this: “I’m sure you’re only out to troll, but maybe it needs said for the sake of others reading along. :)” Which was in response to blinknight, who I’ve had many past conversations with in which he’s demonstrated again and again that he’s only out to troll. It had nothing to do with you. (And wasn’t simply because he disagrees…) And BTW, when I say “I’m sure” like that, it’s really meant to say I’m not sure; probably not the best choice of words, but that’s a common figure of speech (for some reason lol). It means “probably, based on your apparent tone/wording and history of behavior, but I hope it isn’t so.” :)

  • [1] September 16, 2014 at 11:30am

    I hope you realize that a far more important question is if there is a God who can (or wants to) grant you eternal perfect life. :) We do believe (in part because of creation) that the God of the Bible can (as he is the only truly infinite being; there can only be one, remember!), and wants to (because of his revelation in the soundly-supported Bible), through Jesus Christ. :)

    Hypothetically, accepting everything about creation but not accepting Jesus, would be of no value. You still go to hell then, if it’s true (and it is). It may be that you’re like me and you need to understand that yes, he IS the Creator, and Savior, or maybe the issue of creation doesn’t matter to you personally; either way, make sure your focus is on the question of Jesus. :)

    “I can not rationally believe in the ultimate magician just because our knowledge is not perfect.”

    You really shouldn’t worry about trying to understand the “because” of why we believe, since you don’t and therefore aren’t likely to know it. That aside, how do you define “magic”?

    To me, a magician is (other than illusionists that actually exist), a human who would work beyond the laws that are higher than him. The label doesn’t make sense to apply to God, who “wrote those laws” as it were. God is more like a computer programmer, versus a program in the computer (us).

    “Last thing, can you really comprehend eternity? Really think about it,”

    [reply in next]

  • [1] September 16, 2014 at 11:29am

    “Yep, totally no evidence for evolution. Much easier to believe a great magician spoke them into existance. Sounds like a great fairytale.”

    This is what I sometimes call “Mocking Tone fallacy” — and since fallacies work both ways, we can show why it doesn’t work by doing the same to your view. I’m sure you’ve heard people talk about your own beliefs in such a way so you don’t need me to imitate them right now to get it. :P We actually do look at evolution as a fairytale dressed up with fancyspeak to help its followers miss the sillyness of it. Actually IMO any view could have this done to it. Question isn’t if you can describe it in mocking terms but if it has sound support, and our view does, yours doesn’t.

    BTW, since you have repeated several times about “evidence”, keep in mind that can just mean “a reason to think something might be true.” From an emotional rather than logical perspective, things like similarity might superficially give you the emotional experience of seeming to support evolution, but only if you don’t look closely or think too critically about it. In other words, the things you see as evidence really don’t deserve the label.

    “Is there a creator of the universe? I don’t know, but I think there might be. I’m ok noity knowing for sure, but I would like to know.”

    [reply in next]

  • [1] September 16, 2014 at 11:29am

    What we would need to see is proof of unguided generation of new genetic information, and spontaneous generation (for the atheistic version) of new life.

    “By the way, why do dogs walk on their toes and not their feet?”

    In this case the biblical answer is they were designed that way, since all members of the dog baramin (created kind) share this trait.

    “Answer, dogs cam from an ancestor that did walk on its feet (see wolverines).”

    This is simply a statement of faith within your own belief; I don’t share it, and it isn’t scientifically supported.

    “Why do we share sooooo many genes with all other life forms including plants and mushrooms?”

    Think about it — would it make sense for tihngs we EAT to be completely alien to us on a biochemical level? This is just argument from similarity fallacy. But in fact similarity is expected under both views; common biological descent, or common designer. In fact the pattern of similarities fits a web arrangement better than a tree (there are similarities that don’t fit the evolution picture so are brushed under the rug as “convergeant evolution”), which fits human technological and artistic/etc. design too.

    Designers aren’t limited in what they borrow where; if it works, it gets used, but biological descent should actually show a lot LESS similarities! (Example: sonar in both bats and dolphins, now shown to have highly similar genes in fact!)

123 To page: Go